4 ms·

I don't even think we should be "advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people". We should just stop using our prejudice to misinterpret statements, and w

I don't even think we should be "advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people". We should just stop using our prejudice to misinterpret statements, and we should stop putting words in other people's mouths. Autistic people (who usually talk in a very literal way) would be benefited by this change as a byproduct, but this principle should apply to everyone, not only to neurodivergent people. Is what the person said technically correct? Yes or no. That's all that matters.

wozer 6y ago
Unfortunately, that doesn't work either, because there are some neurotypical people who have mastered the art to say technically correct things but implying different, often awful things.
- gameman144 6y ago
  But isn't that a core part of the problem? If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? It seems like a constant game of walking on eggshells if you're trying to pre-emptively prevent anyone from concluding that you were trying to imply something bad. It also seems like this is a largely solved problem in candid one-on-one conversations and interviews: if the other party thinks you're implying something, they can follow-up and ask whether you are indeed intending to. Without two-way discourse, taking someone's statements in good faith seems like the lesser of two evils.
  - herbstein 6y ago
    > If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? If the mafia boss says "I think he is going to get a visit tonight", the person in question is probably not long for this world. Did the mafia boss order the killing of said person? I agree that every little sentence, in isolation, shouldn't be scrutinized, and meaning inferred in a vacuum. However, surely patterns of behavior and the larger context of the words being said should play a role in our interpretation of the words said? Otherwise you end up with things that, read hyper-literally, are innocuous while being completely heinous in context. "Exterminate the Vermin" said by an exterminator is very different to it being said by a German in 1944.
    - gameman144 6y ago
      Totally agree on all points. If someone said "exterminate the vermin", though, the ideal follow-up would be to ask "who or what are the vermin? And what do you mean by 'exterminate'?" Weasel words are always going to dog whistle, but if you think that someone is implying something, the best scenario is to get them to explicitly agree or disagree with that statement. Definitely not applicable in all cases, but if a person explicitly says "I did not mean to imply X, and I disagree with X", then it seems a good rule of thumb to believe that they do in fact disagree with X.
PaulRobinson 6y ago
In this specific case, no, what he said was not logically ("technically"), correct. The age of consent is so named because it is widely accepted that no minor is able to present themselves to an adult as "willing" to engage in sex. After much debate over hundreds of years and with inputs from researchers in child psychology, people below the age of consent are judged by society to not have the emotional maturity to make those decisions, irresepective of their physical maturity. Now, a contrarian might argue that the age is wrong - and indeed, it does vary country by country, and often when the couple are very close in age it is accepted there was not a typical case of sexual exploitation by the elder party - but in the case RMS was referring to, Minsky was likely aware of the age of consent and the reason for its existence AND that his own behaviour was extremely likely to be exploitative and abusive no matter what the child said, so RMS's argument is logically absurd. Minsky's behaviour can not be explained as "acceptable", because the law is not widely considered unjust in this situation other than by pedophiles. RMS' argument can logically be judged as being advocative of a pedophile's behaviour. Therefore RMS' arguments are technically - i.e. logically - incorrect, as well as being deeply offensive to a large number of people. He has since accepted this himself. He does not dispute it.

wozer 6y ago

Unfortunately, that doesn't work either, because there are some neurotypical people who have mastered the art to say technically correct things but implying different, often awful things.

gameman144 6y ago
But isn't that a core part of the problem? If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? It seems like a constant game of walking on eggshells if you're trying to pre-emptively prevent anyone from concluding that you were trying to imply something bad. It also seems like this is a largely solved problem in candid one-on-one conversations and interviews: if the other party thinks you're implying something, they can follow-up and ask whether you are indeed intending to. Without two-way discourse, taking someone's statements in good faith seems like the lesser of two evils.
- herbstein 6y ago
  > If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? If the mafia boss says "I think he is going to get a visit tonight", the person in question is probably not long for this world. Did the mafia boss order the killing of said person? I agree that every little sentence, in isolation, shouldn't be scrutinized, and meaning inferred in a vacuum. However, surely patterns of behavior and the larger context of the words being said should play a role in our interpretation of the words said? Otherwise you end up with things that, read hyper-literally, are innocuous while being completely heinous in context. "Exterminate the Vermin" said by an exterminator is very different to it being said by a German in 1944.
  - gameman144 6y ago
    Totally agree on all points. If someone said "exterminate the vermin", though, the ideal follow-up would be to ask "who or what are the vermin? And what do you mean by 'exterminate'?" Weasel words are always going to dog whistle, but if you think that someone is implying something, the best scenario is to get them to explicitly agree or disagree with that statement. Definitely not applicable in all cases, but if a person explicitly says "I did not mean to imply X, and I disagree with X", then it seems a good rule of thumb to believe that they do in fact disagree with X.

PaulRobinson 6y ago

In this specific case, no, what he said was not logically ("technically"), correct. The age of consent is so named because it is widely accepted that no minor is able to present themselves to an adult as "willing" to engage in sex. After much debate over hundreds of years and with inputs from researchers in child psychology, people below the age of consent are judged by society to not have the emotional maturity to make those decisions, irresepective of their physical maturity. Now, a contrarian might argue that the age is wrong - and indeed, it does vary country by country, and often when the couple are very close in age it is accepted there was not a typical case of sexual exploitation by the elder party - but in the case RMS was referring to, Minsky was likely aware of the age of consent and the reason for its existence AND that his own behaviour was extremely likely to be exploitative and abusive no matter what the child said, so RMS's argument is logically absurd. Minsky's behaviour can not be explained as "acceptable", because the law is not widely considered unjust in this situation other than by pedophiles. RMS' argument can logically be judged as being advocative of a pedophile's behaviour. Therefore RMS' arguments are technically - i.e. logically - incorrect, as well as being deeply offensive to a large number of people. He has since accepted this himself. He does not dispute it.